Bucklers and the Knight

Chuck Davis · Post by **Chuck Davis** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 7:02 pm

As I was reading the thread on the Rose Tournament I was s

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
Hello my very good friend! As I said to Philipe, this looks wonderful. One question, however: What's the justification for buckler play in a knightly deed of arms? Is there some source I'm missing? The only references I've found for buckler play was in unarmored self defense or for lower-class soldiers (e.g., English archers) to use in war. Thanks!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know of the several Fechtbuchs on buckler play and the ARMA has several posted with quite a few illustrations.
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/LeignitzerSandB.htm

So far I canâ€™t find a reference to them being used in a knightly deed of arms or tournament, but I feel safe in saying that Knights did use them in warfare, not just lower-class soldiers. Especially see this image of the Archangel Michael from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY

<table cellpadding=2 cellspacing=2 border=0><tr><td width=97 align=center>click for larger pic. (139k)</td></tr><tr><td>[img]http://www.isd.net/cdavis/images/st_michael_sm2.jpg"%20width=97%20height=100%20border=0%20alt="St.%20Michael[/img]</td></tr></table>

I believe that this painting shows someone of the knightly class using a buckler.

What are other peoples thoughts on this?
-Cad

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 7:31 pm

We will never know excatly what part bucklers played in the big picture of Knightly combat. But I think I have figured something out about what we are seeing in the manuals as far as buckler play is concerned..before I lay my latest theory on you, how many of you have ever heard the phrase "The exercise of the sword and buckler"? I think the term exercise is very important here.
-Vitus

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 9:32 pm

Your point about the St. Michael painting is interesting, Cad. I still believe that the buckler isn't typical for knights to use in war, and wonder if that painting isn't using some artistic license, particularly considering that he's fighting a dragon rather than another knight. On the other hand, I just don't know as much about 15th-century warfare as I'd like, so perhaps this represents a form used more than I thought.

Still I have yet to see *any* evidence for the use of sword and buckler in a formal knightly deed of arms, and since that's what the original source was talking about I still think it's an innappropriate form. Moreover, I would argue that the buckler was certainly not *normal* for knights to use in any setting other than unarmored combat.

By the way, are you sure that's St. Michael and not St. George? There's a red cross on the buckler, and that's typically associated with George.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 07-08-2002).]

Chuck Davis · Post by **Chuck Davis** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 9:53 pm

Hi Sir Rhys,
Yes, I'm sure this is of St. Michael. He isn't fighting a dragon, but a hydra, and St. George didn't have 'wings' This picture is also dated to late 14th century. Don't know why there is a red cross on the buckler as I believe this is Spanish too. Have to check that.

I'm still trying to find any mention of bucklers in Knightly Deeds, but I don't think we can just discount it as only being used by the lower classes.

Yours,
-Cad

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 10:05 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chuck Davis:
Hi Sir Rhys,
Yes, I'm sure this is of St. Michael. He isn't fighting a dragon, but a hydra, and St. George didn't have 'wings' This picture is also dated to late 14th century. Don't know why there is a red cross on the buckler as I believe this is Spanish too. Have to check that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting, then: I had mistakenly believed that the primary way to distinguish St. George from other saints was the red cross on his shield, but you're quite right about the wings, I hadn't noticed them the first time.

I'm still trying to find any mention of bucklers in Knightly Deeds, but I don't think we can just discount it as only being used by the lower classes.

I hope you didn't get the impression I was saying that knights never used bucklers: quite the contrary, I think it was *commonly* used by knights, I just don't find evidence (other than the painting you showed, which I confess *must* be a knight if it's a saint) to show knights commonly used them in *armor*, and *never* in knightly deeds of arms. Once again, this point was raised in reference to a formal passage of arms.

If this paintings was, as you say, Spanish, could it be that there's a difference on that point in Spain? After all, the great late-period sword and buckler men (admittedly, post "medieval", really renaissance) were Spanish. Perhaps the form was more common there?

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 07-08-2002).]

Chuck Davis · Post by **Chuck Davis** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 10:11 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
 I hope you didn't get the impression I was saying that knights never used bucklers: quite the contrary, I think it was *commonly* used by knights, I just don't find evidence (other than the painting you showed, which I confess *must* be a knight if it's a saint) to show knights commonly used them in *armor*, and *never* in knightly deeds of arms. Once again, this point was raised in reference to a formal passage of arms.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I understand now. It may be that the buckler wasn't used in formal passages of arms. That will be difficult to footnote.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
If this paintings was, as you say, Spanish, could it be that there's a difference on that point in Spain? After all, the great late-period sword and buckler men (admittedly, post "medieval", really renaissance) were Spanish. Perhaps the form was more common there?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I will have to do some more digging for those answers. If the information exists.

Thanks again,
-Cad

HugoFuchs · Post by **HugoFuchs** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 10:30 pm

Time ... Give me time....
anyhow, the buckler is a weapon for foot use, quite effective too. I'll have to take a skim to see if I have anything else, but it will take some time.

Vincent_c=={=====- · Post by **Vincent_c=={=====-** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 11:45 pm

Well this might be a little off subject for Rhys and Cad but in response to Vitus's post I believe that the sword and buckler was a form of *excercise* one way or another. Using a tiny sheild in a non lethal combat format is a great way to sharpen reflexes, speed so on so forth. But then when it comes time for war or a formal display of prowess it makes sense to simply use the best sheild for the job, ie: heater or pavise. Because at that point you are not training, your fighting with what prowess you have so as I said before use the best tools for the job at hand.

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 12:39 am

We have buckler shown as early as the 13th C. and up through the 16th. You really have to narrow the timeframe down to avoid generalization. Once you reach full plate in the 15th C., buckler certainly is a weapon for professional soldiers - archers and halberdiers, but not knights. In the 16th C. they are carried by non-military "bravos" as a dueling weapon. In the 13th C., early 14th C., who knows? My feelings are it's a peasant weapon, but I can't prove that one way or another. It's a handy weapon (not just a shield) to carry anytime you are unarmoured.

Chuck Davis · Post by **Chuck Davis** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 6:05 am

Hi Bascot

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bascot:
We have buckler shown as early as the 13th C. and up through the 16th. You really have to narrow the timeframe down to avoid generalization.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, the use of specific weapons and armour certainly changed over this time period. Good suggestion. I'm mainly interested in the 14th and 15th centuries, but I didn't state that in my question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bascot:
Once you reach full plate in the 15th C., buckler certainly is a weapon for professional soldiers - archers and halberdiers, but not knights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There seems to be a great deal of information for the use of the buckler by professional soldiers, but why not knights? Why not in a tournament or deed of arms? What do you base you speculation on?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bascot:
In the 16th C. they are carried by non-military "bravos" as a dueling weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't know much about the 16th century. Too late to be medieval for me. Really, it should be seen as early modern.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bascot:
In the 13th C., early 14th C., who knows? My feelings are it's a peasant weapon, but I can't prove that one way or another. It's a handy weapon (not just a shield) to carry anytime you are unarmoured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it was just a peasant weapon, how do you account for the painting of St. Michael? Or the other illustrations on the ARMA
site that seem to show higher station people using the buckler?

To all: please look at the ARMA article on buckler. There are over 20 illustrations covering the 13-16 century.

Thanks Bascot,
-Cad

Bernhart von Bruck · Post by **Bernhart von Bruck** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:08 am

Chello!

A couple of things I find interesting about the St. Michael pic (of which I was skeptical at first--not to authenticity, but to the importnace of the buckler):

1. Most St. Michael icons show him in Roman or Byzantine armor. He's in late 14th-early 15th C. armor. Notice the gauntlets, too. I never recall having seen Michael in gauntlets before. So maybe there's more to this buckler than is at first readily apparent.

2. The hydra is Satan himself under the guise of the beast (with 10 heads and 10 crowns) from the Apocalyspe of St. John (as an aside).

3. The other interesting thing about the buckler is that Michael is usually represented either with nothing in his off-hand or a pair of scales (unless he's armed with a spear--maybe 20% of the time or less).

Using iconography to document armor of a period is tricky at best, but sometimes things just come together. There is still the ref as to whether the buckler was used as an merely an exercise tool for knights. But the verse icons of Michael is based on says, "There was WAR in Heaven; Michael and his angels fought...."

Just a few randoms thoughts,

Tony

------------------
"Meanwhile, the axe-wielding barbarians...in their ardour of battle...advanced too quickly...burning to engage with the equally brave Franks, for of a truth these barbarians are no less mad in battle than the Franks, and not a bit inferior to them."
Anna Comnena, "The Alexiad"

*******
â€œAs for [the Japanese] having yellow skin, if we go back two thousand years we will find that to the Greek and the Roman the most dreaded and in a sense the most despised barbarian was the white-skinned, blue-eyed and red or yellow-haired barbarian of the North--the men from whom you and I in a large part derive our blood.â€

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:56 am

As far as the "exercise of the sword and buckler", I think the reason we see unarmoured people "fighting" with these things is that they are not fighting, or practicing fighting techniques- they are doing targeting exercises. The buckler is a target, much like those big pads that boxing trainers wear on their hands for their trainees to punch at. Isn't the buckler also called a "target"?
The exercise of the sword and buckler is a way to practice defensive reactions and spot-shots in a partner scenario. I hold the buckler in a spot, and you practice tagging it- just like boxing hand pads.
Maybe 1.33 is about fighting, I don't really know since I have never seen a translation of the text. But just think- it may be an exercise video.

-V

IainMcClennan · Post by **IainMcClennan** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 9:27 am

Vitus,

The buckler is definately about fighting. The small target you are trying to hit is the other guy's forearm.

The buckler wouldn't be as useful to a fully armoured knight of the 14th-15th for the same reason any other shield isn't. If he is attacked by a buckler wielding opponent, that person will be using a one-handed sword which isn't very effective against the armour. If the knight expects to go up against other knights, he'll want to use something like a longsword or axe which would be effective against armour.

In the biography of Pero Nino, a 14thc. knight, there is a scene where Pero wants to get a close look at the fortifications of a city they have just laid seige to. For protection he grabs a helmet, hauberk, and sword & buckler.

The buckler isn't a civilian, lower class weapon so much as an unarmoured or lightly armoured weapon. It's clear from the fechtbuchs, and common sense that a knight will have occasion to fight out of armour. His skills weren't reserved exclusively for the battle and list field in harness.

Iain

Cunian · Post by **Cunian** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 9:37 am

http://www.tempora-nostra.de/index_f_neu.shtml?manesse0-9

Both #62 and #68, illustrations from the Manesse Codex, show sword and buckler fighting in a tournament context. Admittedly not harnishfechten, but not peasants, and associated with heraldry. (Sorry, don't have text at the moment)
I tend to agree with interpeting it as being a light, less formal form, and often a training form, but not an ignoble one.

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 11:29 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cunian:
http://www.tempora-nostra.de/index_f_neu.shtml?manesse0-9

Both #62 and #68, illustrations from the Manesse Codex, show sword and buckler fighting in a tournament context. Admittedly not harnishfechten, but not peasants, and associated with heraldry. (Sorry, don't have text at the moment)
I tend to agree with interpeting it as being a light, less formal form, and often a training form, but not an ignoble one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but there's no indication *whatsoever* that the Manessa Codex paintings of sword and buckler refer to any sort of tournament! Instead, these paintings probably show young men learning the important skill of buckler fighting, or perhaps even demonstating such skill in an informal contest. But tournaments were fought in armor, not the street clothing these young men are wearing.

I've looked at all these pictures, and while I can't see any that definitively show knights using bucklers in war (although they may; it's exceedingly difficult to differentiate between knights and regular footmen in a lot of these paintings), I *can* say that *none* of them show knights engaged in a tournament using bucklers. Remember, that was what started this off. On the other hand, I think it's always been clear that the sword and buckler was a *common* form for most social classes to use unarmored: no one's disputing that.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

justmagnus · Post by **justmagnus** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 11:57 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by IainMcClennan:


The buckler wouldn't be as useful to a fully armoured knight of the 14th-15th for the same reason any other shield isn't. If he is attacked by a buckler wielding opponent, that person will be using a one-handed sword which isn't very effective against the armour.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have heard this before. At lunch I was reading "Tournaments" by Barber and Barker and in the majority of illustrations where lances were not being used at least one person was using a single handed sword. If they were so totally ineffective why would they have been so prevalent in the illustrations.

(I apologize for getting off the buckler subject but I was curious.)

Rob

Cunian · Post by **Cunian** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 12:42 pm

"I'm sorry, but there's no indication *whatsoever* that the Manessa Codex paintings of sword and buckler refer to any sort of tournament! Instead, these paintings probably show young men learning the important skill of buckler fighting, or perhaps even demonstating such skill in an informal contest. But tournaments were fought in armor, not the street clothing these young men are wearing."

Okay, I guess I was considering the gallery of attentive ladies more indicative of a tournament than armour or lack thereof. I think there is reason to believe there were a number of levels of formality to such contests, which could be interpreted broadly as tournaments or narrowly as not tournaments. So, what would be a tournament to you? The same picture with the players in armour? Or would you need something more?

Cunian · Post by **Cunian** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 12:51 pm

Or would the sword and buckler play then have been in the context of a behourd?

From Barber and Barker's Tournaments:
"A romance written in the early years of the thirteenth century in south-east Germany describes a fierce Behourd which 'would have been a tournament if they had been wearing armour'"

Aelric · Post by **Aelric** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 2:11 pm

Magnus,

The single handed sword would still be used in tourney because you are not trying to defeat the armour. A single sword would be fine for battering your foe with without killing him. I assume the illustrations were of tourney because the book is called 'Tournaments'.

Aelric

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 2:56 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cunian:
[BOkay, I guess I was considering the gallery of attentive ladies more indicative of a tournament than armour or lack thereof. I think there is reason to believe there were a number of levels of formality to such contests, which could be interpreted broadly as tournaments or narrowly as not tournaments. So, what would be a tournament to you? The same picture with the players in armour? Or would you need something more?

[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a formal passage of arms such as the one which started this entire discussion, yes, there would have to be armor for me to consider it to be like that.

As for the ladies watching, haven't you ever seen any of the pictures of late-period fencing salons with galleries of ladies watching the practice?

But even if the sword and buckler work was *competitive* (rather than just a practice session), that doesn't make sword and buckler appropriate for a formal deed of arms like the passage of arms which sparked my question to begin with.

We can show that Germans fought with huge, ungainly shields having hooks and spikes all over them in judicial combats: Certainly these were "competitive", too, but I hope no one would believe for a moment they belong on the tournament field! Or what about the form of judicial combat we see in Talhoffer where a man is in a hole and a woman is on the ground above him with a rock in a veil? Again, it's competitive, but it has no place on the tournament field.

The simple question is this: "Is sword and buckler a normally-used weapon form in knightly tournament combat." So far there hasn't been one single shred of evidence to even suggest that was ever done, never mind to substantiate it.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Gethin · Post by **Gethin** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 2:56 pm

Hi Rhys,
In regards to the heraldic device of St. Michael and St. George. I did some research on Michael and found that both carry the same device. The transferance seems to have occurred in the mid fourteenth century (around the time that St. George became the patron saint of England).
One author suggests that due to the "simalarities" of the two, warrior dragon slayers, the later medieval mind gave them the same device. What would distinguish the two would be the colored wings and diadem (the circlet with garnet(?) and cross), which is an indication of an archangel.
I hope this helps.

------------------
All the best,
Rhys
"Art calls for complete mastery of techniques, developed by reflection within the soul"
Sifu Jun Fan Lee

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 3:57 pm

Thanks for the clarification, Iain. I love fighting with my buckler! I am hopelessly addicted.
-Vitus

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 4:07 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gethin:
 Hi Rhys,
In regards to the heraldic device of St. Michael and St. George. I did some research on Michael and found that both carry the same device. The transferance seems to have occurred in the mid fourteenth century (around the time that St. George became the patron saint of England).
One author suggests that due to the "simalarities" of the two, warrior dragon slayers, the later medieval mind gave them the same device. What would distinguish the two would be the colored wings and diadem (the circlet with garnet(?) and cross), which is an indication of an archangel.
I hope this helps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you very much! As one of the founders of The Company of St. Michael, I should have known that. :::sigh::: It seems I can never learn everything I need to know.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

HugoFuchs · Post by **HugoFuchs** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:21 pm

Just a quickie, though I'm sure you've probably already looked at it Cad.
Fechtbuch I.33

I am beginning to think that it was, as said, only used by knights when not armoured. It may have been in use when there was a possibility of danger but not enough that one would go get armoured up. You see them occasionally carried without armour clipped with the sword to the belt.

Just what I've hit so far.

Cunian · Post by **Cunian** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 9:48 pm

Another picture, which I didn't see in the very extensive sword and buckler article - The Master of Winningau's Resurrection - http://www.art.cz/ng/O477.html
Already suspect for his non-existant bar grill,

, this fellow appears to have pretty extensive armor and a rather extreme buckler. But then it's neither a tourney nor a war, just a lousy guard job.

Chuck Davis · Post by **Chuck Davis** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 9:52 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cunian:
Another picture, which I didn't see in the very extensive sword and buckler article - The Master of Winningau's Resurrection - http://www.art.cz/ng/O477.html
Already suspect for his non-existant bar grill,

, this fellow appears to have pretty extensive armor and a rather extreme buckler. But then it's neither a tourney nor a war, just a lousy guard job.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhhhhhhhh Not bar grills!!! Not in my post pleassssseeeeeeeee.....

-Cad

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 11:08 pm

That's not a "buckler" proper, more of a target and too heavy to be used as the I.33 manuscripts show.

Constancius · Post by **Constancius** » Wed Jul 10, 2002 11:25 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cunian:
Another picture, which I didn't see in the very extensive sword and buckler article - The Master of Winningau's Resurrection - http://www.art.cz/ng/O477.html
Already suspect for his non-existant bar grill,

, this fellow appears to have pretty extensive armor and a rather extreme buckler. But then it's neither a tourney nor a war, just a lousy guard job.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like what I 've heard termed as a punch buckler. COuld be wrong though.

------------------
Constancius of Lincolnshire

animis corporibusque